No, the benches do not count because the glass is recessed back into the crowd. A rising shot that would hit the glass elsewhere may clear the glass at the benches. Allen's call (he should have gotten award for clearing the glass at the far end, what a shot), was because the shot originated in the Vancouver zone.

Topper wrote:No, the benches do not count because the glass is recessed back into the crowd. A rising shot that would hit the glass elsewhere may clear the glass at the benches.

The rule specifically states that clearing the glass behind the bench is a penalty, not that I would be surprised for the league to allow refs to use their discretion there and tie their hands on pucks clearing any of the rest of the glass.

Allen's call (he should have gotten award for clearing the glass at the far end, what a shot), was because the shot originated in the Vancouver zone.

Too bad he couldn't shoot with that power from the opponent's zone, although with that accuracy it mightn't have mattered.

But yeah I was perhaps not clear on that, the puck going over the glass anywhere is a penalty, as long as it came off the stick (or hand or whatever) of a player in their own zone.

dbr wrote:The rule specifically states that clearing the glass behind the bench is a penalty, not that I would be surprised for the league to allow refs to use their discretion there and tie their hands on pucks clearing any of the rest of the glass.

You're right.

When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players’ bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass ‘behind’ the players’ bench, the penalty will be assessed.

dbr wrote:The rule specifically states that clearing the glass behind the bench is a penalty, not that I would be surprised for the league to allow refs to use their discretion there and tie their hands on pucks clearing any of the rest of the glass.

You're right.

When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players’ bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass ‘behind’ the players’ bench, the penalty will be assessed.

I get all of that but my question was, is all discretion gone? To me Stoll intentionally shot the puck over the boards and aimed for the benches so as not to get an automatic penalty. Is the rule now so black and white that the refs can no longer give a penalty for intentional delay of game? Is there a separate rule I guess is what I am asking.

A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck outside the playing area during the play or after a stoppage of play.

When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players’ bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass ‘behind’ the players’ bench, the penalty will be assessed.

Since deliberately shooting the puck out of the playing area from their D zone is cause for a penalty, & players don’t want to be penalized, it’s not rational to assume that players intentionally do this.

Since deliberately shooting the puck out of the playing area from their D zone is cause for a penalty, & players don’t want to be penalized, it’s not rational to assume that players intentionally do this.